[One Degree]

No doubt they’re devoted in their nonviolent resistance but I am not convinced it achieves much let alone what you say it could possibly achieve. Unaware of any precedent to support such a notion that people slaughtering others somehow acknowledge their humanity and it stops. Have any historical examples?
Because not fighting doesn’t seem to eliminate the basis for such a conflict unless one thinks conflicts are merely because people fight and thus if they simply didn’t fight then it’d break the motive/basis for it.

I can see examples of people using kindness instead of hate for ideological reasons like black folks who talk to KKK. But that is different than something like british colonialism which had already proven historically they didn’t have high regard for Indians with previous famines and such. It seems apparent that without violent resistance then the British couldve extended their rule.

A couple quick Examples would be Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela. You seem to dismiss Gandhi as having no effect because some people dismissed his effectiveness. This is belied by those who copied him. You don’t copy failures.
Governments are very careful to create a ‘reason for the public’ to justify their violence. Any violent act will serve to mobilize the people to war. How do you do this if there are no violent acts? You don’t get your people to kill others unless they see a threat.
It all comes down to real change requires a change in ourselves. Changing our thinking changes the world.

[B0ycey]

No doubt they’re devoted in their nonviolent resistance but I am not convinced it achieves much let alone what you say it could possibly achieve. Unaware of any precedent to support such a notion that people slaughtering others somehow acknowledge their humanity and it stops. Have any historical examples?

I think you underestimate the power of civil disobedience Wellsy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_civil_disobedience

Although it is incorrect to believe that no violence took place even to gain Indias independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/indian_rebellion_01.shtml

But ultimately Gandhi won not because of violence but because without the support of the populous the system fails. It didn't matter how much wooing the British Empire did to him, he made sure India wasn't playing the game and the Jewel of the British Empire, among violence between Muslims and Hindus, made trying to maintain India under British Rule vain.

So in summary, to expect change you must accept there will be violence. But the degree of violence and the means of that violence pales in significance to the numbers who support your cause in reaching the desired goal. Because ultimately if everyone decides to not play the game and lays down their life instead, who is left to pay tax on your salt?

[colliric]

But ultimately Gandhi won not because of violence but because without the support of the populous the system fails.

Same reason Jesus succeeded destroying the Sanhedrin....

Had the majority of the Jewish population outside Jerusalem on his side(even if they didn't believe he was Messiah).

[fuser]

Indeed. Anyone who thinks that Gandhi was at all revolutionary clearly knows nothing about Gandhi. Or, indeed, about revolutions.

Besides, the obvious answer is V.I. Lenin.

This.

There is a Hitler quote "If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution."

It fits perfectly with Gandhi, his life is literally filled with compromising revolutions of any sort.

Just one example in early 1946 there was a Royal Indian Navy mutiny probably the single most important reason why Britain had to leave India, the mutineers were supported by the workers who started strikes, these mutineers were waving flags of Muslim League, Congress and Communist Party and Gandhi said of them that they were misguided children and both Congress and Muslim league distanced themselves from it and pressurized them to stop the strikes and mutiny. It was just too revolutionary for them.

Gandhi's sabotage of Ambedkar's social reform agendas is the stuff of legends, its just laughable to take Gandhi as a revolutionary of any sort, he was a great propagandist though, imo the only guy who beat the Britain in their own game i.e. the realm of propaganda by proving that no Britain is not the more civilized group here.

As per answer its obviously V.I. Lenin.

[colliric]

As per answer its obviously V.I. Lenin.

Lenin didn't get shot, stabbed or crucified by people from his own cultural background....

More than one type of Revolutionary.

Obviously when I put forward Gandhi I was putting forward a secondary religious example not related to my top pick, not a political example. He was a religious revolutionary to me, not a political one.

Religious revolutionaries threaten the Religious establishment with radicalised theology and practises and often get assasinated for that. That's why Jesus is a revolutionary as well, he most certainly destroyed the legitimacy of the Sanhedrin. Gandhi I put forward as a 20th century example of a religious revolutionary.

My political pick is of course the politician in my avatar!

[B0ycey]

Lenin.

The so called greatest revolutionist wasn't even there when the hard work was done. Talk about inspirational. Any fucker can take control and storm government buildings to seize power when they are already have power to begin with.

[fuser]

Pardon my ignorance but I failed to learn that to be a great revolutionary you need to be brutally murdered by your own people, the martyr concept in Christianity is so cringeworthy that its ridiculous. No wonder that fucker i.e. a Christian missionary John Chau went to the Sentinel Island illegally to spread the word of God and killed by the tribes there who are living in complete isolation for 60,000 years and his family had the gall to forgivve the tribes there.

Lenin.

The so called greatest revolutionist wasn't even there when the hard work was done. Talk about inspirational. Any fucker can take control and storm government buildings to seize power when they are already have power to begin with.

So when are you storming the White House then?

[B0ycey]

So when are you storming the White House then?

When I have control their military like Lenin did.

[fuser]

So..... Not any "Fucker" can do it then..

[B0ycey]

No, just any fucker who already has power. You know, the thing I said.

[colliric]

Pardon my ignorance but I failed to learn that to be a great revolutionary you need to be brutally murdered by your own people, the martyr concept in Christianity is so cringeworthy that its ridiculous. No wonder that fucker i.e. a Christian missionary John Chau went to the Sentinel Island illegally to spread the word of God and killed by the tribes there who are living in complete isolation for 60,000 years and his family had the gall to forgivve the tribes there.

John Chau failed to remember Jesus also said to obey the law(/Torah) as much as you can(I.e. when the law makes sense) and that his "kingdom is not of this World".... Also Jesus sent his disciples out in pairs, NOT ALONE.

He needed to spend time actually trying to figure out how Jewish believers understand Jesus(as Rabbi Yeshua HaMashiach). After all it's all ultimately their friggen culture we Goyim are all talking about nonstop and ultimately a Jewish Rabbi we worship as the Son of God. I have actually done this myself.

[pugsville]

John Chau failed to remember Jesus also said to obey the law(/Torah) as much as you can(I.e. when the law makes sense) and that his "kingdom is not of this World"....

there are no reliable witnesses. Saying Jesus said something just isn't historically correct. The bible was written by people who were not witnesses to Jesus. writing much later. Later propagandists whose purposes, goals, religiousness beliefs may well have been radically different from historical Jesus.

[colliric]

there are no reliable witnesses. Saying Jesus said something just isn't historically correct. The bible was written by people who were not witnesses to Jesus. writing much later. Later propagandists whose purposes, goals, religiousness beliefs may well have been radically different from historical Jesus.

Nope.... They were ALL Jews.

"Follow the Rebbe/Rabbi! Even to the ends of the Earth!"

That's how Jews have historically always interpreted how best to follow their Rabbi's. DO WHAT THE RABBI TELLS YOU TO DO, NO QUESTIONS ASKED!

Took me many years until I met and was friends with Jewish believers before finally realising exactly how his disciples interpreted everything. They interpreted it all 100% literally. Ultimately they were all Jewish and they were all "Following the Rabboni!"

[pugsville]

Nope.... They were ALL Jews.

"Follow the Rebbe/Rabbi! Even to the ends of the Earth!"

That's how Jews have historically always interpreted how best to follow their Rabbi's. DO WHAT THE RABBI TELLS YOU TO DO, NO QUESTIONS ASKED!

Took me many years until I met and was friends with Jewish believers before finally realising exactly how his disciples interpreted everything. They interpreted it all 100% literally. Ultimately they were all Jewish and they were all "Following the Rabboni!"

The Bible was written by people whio were NOT there. It's legendary heresya by people who were creating their own myths to shape a religion for their own purposes.

To go around syiang jeus said X is simply historically not accurate, We have no idea what he said.

You want to follow mythology thats your concern but to insist that's it's historical fact is delusional,

[Rich]

This.

There is a Hitler quote "If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution."

It fits perfectly with Gandhi, his life is literally filled with compromising revolutions of any sort.

Just one example in early 1946 there was a Royal Indian Navy mutiny probably the single most important reason why Britain had to leave India, the mutineers were supported by the workers who started strikes, these mutineers were waving flags of Muslim League, Congress and Communist Party and Gandhi said of them that they were misguided children and both Congress and Muslim league distanced themselves from it and pressurized them to stop the strikes and mutiny. It was just too revolutionary for them.

Gandhi's sabotage of Ambedkar's social reform agendas is the stuff of legends, its just laughable to take Gandhi as a revolutionary of any sort, he was a great propagandist though, imo the only guy who beat the Britain in their own game i.e. the realm of propaganda by proving that no Britain is not the more civilized group here.

As per answer its obviously V.I. Lenin.

Hitler was lower class than Lenin, he came from a less privileged back ground and unlike Lenin he wasn't even born a subject of the empire that he would come to lead. It is also arguable that Hitlers ideas were more revolutionary than Lenin's, Lenin's Communism, merely being a de-mythologised (or perhaps re-mythologised) atheistic evolution of Medieval Catholicism. Both Lenin and Hitler, like Gandhi shared a disturbing Islamophillia.

That said both Lenin and Hitler were amongst the revolutionary greats. Also deserving mention are Zarathustra (although maybe he's not really in history), Josiah, Jan Hus and Martin Luther. However I don't see how there can really be any debate about who was the greatest revolutionary in history. It was François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture.

[One Degree]

The argument Gandhi was not revolutionary because he did not support armed rebellion is ludicrous. Armed rebellion reduced the chance of his larger rebellion working. It would be stupid of him to support the very thing that undermined his message.

Edit: Also, do you really think the British or any government would admit an unarmed preacher was a significant factor? Giving his views credibility is a disaster for elites.

[Drlee]

I would like to offer three honorable mentions.

Fidel Castro.

Though moderately brutal he did what he set out to do and it has lasted so far. (We are dangling the carrot of stuff under their noses so we will see but so far they are getting by.)

Ho Chi Minh.

He was, by any standard successful. Sadly he was not an admirable character.

The American Founding Fathers.

Honorable mention because it was certainly a group effort. Washington was nominally famous in his day but not the undisputed leader. Their revolution was pretty much unlike any other and the results equally so. It is not fashionable to recognize the American Revolution for what it is because we hold Americans to a much higher standard.

Indeed it Lenin and Ghandi had achieved the results the US founding fathers achieved we would not be having this discussion. The American Revolution changed the entire world quite profoundly.

[fuser]

The argument Gandhi was not revolutionary because he did not support armed rebellion is ludicrous. Armed rebellion reduced the chance of his larger rebellion working. It would be stupid of him to support the very thing that undermined his message.

Edit: Also, do you really think the British or any government would admit an unarmed preacher was a significant factor? Giving his views credibility is a disaster for elites.

I am not talking about armed rebellion though that mutiny and strikes were not violent in nature neither were Ambedkar's revolutionary proposals which Gandhi sabotaged at every step of the way. Just search Gandhi-Ambedkar and you will find tons of material on the subject. btw Ambedkar was not a communist, he was a liberal and his revolutionary programs were for the lower castes of the Indian society (he himself was one) which Gandhi sabotaged, frustrated he converted to Buddhism in 1956 with his followers, current Buddhists in India are basically this lot who converted in 1956.

Let me leave you with an excerpt between of a conversation between Gandhi and Ambedkar :

Gandhi: I understand that you have got some grievances against the Congress and me. I may tell you that I have been thinking over the problem of Untouchables ever since my school days – when you were not even born.

Ambedkar: It is true, Mahatmaji, that you started to think about the problem of Untouchables before I was born. All old and elderly persons always like to emphasize the point of age.



Gandhi: The Congress has spent not less than rupees twenty lakhs on the uplift of the Untouchables.

Ambedkar: The Congress is not sincere about its professions. Had it been, it would have surely made the removal of Untouchability a condition, like the wearing of khaddar, for becoming a member of the Congress. No person who did not employ untouchable women or men in his house, or rear up an untouchable student, or take food at home with an untouchable student at least once a week, should have been allowed to be a member of the Congress. Had there been such a condition, you could have avoided the ridiculous sight where the President of the District Congress Committee was seen opposing the temple entry of the Untouchables. You might say that Congress lacked strength and therefore it was unwise to lay down such a condition. Then my point is that Congress cares more for strength than for principles. This is my charge against you and the Congress. You say the British Government does not show a change of heart. I also say that the Hindus have not shown a change of heart in regard to our problem, and so long as they remain adamant, we would believe neither the Congress nor the Hindus. We believe in self-help and self-respect.

Gandhi: It is really surprising that men like you should offer opposition to me and to the Congress.

Ambedkar: We are not prepared to have faith in great leaders and Mahatmas. Let me be brutally frank about it. History tells that Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust, but raise no level.

The savage burn that Ambedkar is giving here in itself is great to read.

Ambedkar was revolutionary, SC Bose was revolutionary, Gandhi was not.

[Wellsy]

A couple quick Examples would be Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela. You seem to dismiss Gandhi as having no effect because some people dismissed his effectiveness. This is belied by those who copied him. You don’t copy failures.
Governments are very careful to create a ‘reason for the public’ to justify their violence. Any violent act will serve to mobilize the people to war. How do you do this if there are no violent acts? You don’t get your people to kill others unless they see a threat.
It all comes down to real change requires a change in ourselves. Changing our thinking changes the world.

That others followed his example doesn't in itself exemplify his success which is my point particularly to Gandhi that it's not apparent that he was the impetus of change and instead I argue he was a hindrance in trying to restrict things.

I don't get the point about governments propagandizing people for war is meant to express when the context was opposition to British rule. Where it wasn't the case that there wasn't a conflict, the British already showed their disregard for Indian life to which masses of people confronted it.
The British were prepared to keep control as long as they had a loyal military to keep the population in check, when they lost that they shat themselves. It was not about killing people or not, it's about challenging the basis of another's power. The means of enforcing British interest was lost

Your talk of changing selves makes the task sound more like a spiritual change than a task of shaking off one's oppressors, changing the world being the important thing so that people who live in the changed world are better off.

I think you underestimate the power of civil disobedience Wellsy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_civil_disobedience

Although it is incorrect to believe that no violence took place even to gain Indias independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/indian_rebellion_01.shtml

But ultimately Gandhi won not because of violence but because without the support of the populous the system fails. It didn't matter how much wooing the British Empire did to him, he made sure India wasn't playing the game and the Jewel of the British Empire, among violence between Muslims and Hindus, made trying to maintain India under British Rule vain.

So in summary, to expect change you must accept there will be violence. But the degree of violence and the means of that violence pales in significance to the numbers who support your cause in reaching the desired goal. Because ultimately if everyone decides to not play the game and lays down their life instead, who is left to pay tax on your salt?

I don't dismiss it on principal but in the case of Gandhi, I do not see evidence of his success compared to what is asserted as causing the British to change their tune, the lack of reliability of the military to enforce it's interests against the local population.
I haven't seen the argument made for the impact of Gandhi besides some appeal to a moral standard or something, which seems to disregard the morality of the Indian people shaking of colonization and the importance of that for them. In fact, his criticism of the mutiny was particular fucked in that it exemplified people of different religious beliefs fighting side by side.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyo.in/lite/politics/how-gandhi-patel-and-nehru-colluded-with-the-british-to-suppress-the-naval-mutiny-of-1946/story/1/5567.html

Dutt’s conjecture was grounded on the fact that the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs fought shoulder to shoulder during the mutiny although the relation between the Muslims and non-Muslims was at its nadir in the society outside then. He has written about the mutiny: "Ratings from every ship and the shore establishments started marching to the Talwar. The streets of Bombay resounded to their slogans calling for national unity. ``Hindu Muslim Ek Ho’’ (Hindu Muslim Unity) and ``Inquilab Zindabad.’’ p. 135, [24].

The editor S. Natarajan of the Free Press Journal, which was one of the first newspapers to cover the momentous event, has written: "What was impressive among the ratings was their complete freedom from communal or sectarian prejudices and their staunch loyalty to each other. Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims refused all offer of help, which meant discriminating against or for one community. Instances were not wanting when one or the other community was compelled to give shelter to some of the boys from a different sect.’’ p. 7, [24].

This fact has also been acknowledged by Kusum Nair, ``Enquiries started and officers who remained loyal during the crisis vied with each other in reporting and cooking evidence against the boys believed to have organised the strike. The most astonishing fact about the strike was that there was not a single black sheep from among the ratings who came from all provinces and castes and creeds and who held sympathies for different political parties. Such united and concerted action has never been seen in India even at the times of our best struggles for freedom.’’ p. 52, [38].

Gandhi has himself acknowledged the unity, but condemned it as a unity for violence - "A combination between Hindus and Muslims and others for the purpose of violent action is unholy and will lead to and probably is a preparation for mutual violence—bad for India and the world’’ in his speech quoted before. Yet, we have shown that just before the Khilafat, he believed that he would be untrue to his faith if he did not assist the Muslims only because they believed in violence. He therefore objected to Hindu-Muslim unity for violence, but supported Muslims alone even when they believed in violence.

But I do find it agreeable that the more numbers one has the more one likely doesn't have to use violence to enact the change one wants. Non-violence isn't 'not playing the game', one doesn't get a choice to not play when your country is colonized or a people are oppressed. It's an unavoidable state of affairs that is to be confronted or not but the confrontation exists even if don't want it to.

The argument Gandhi was not revolutionary because he did not support armed rebellion is ludicrous. Armed rebellion reduced the chance of his larger rebellion working. It would be stupid of him to support the very thing that undermined his message.

Edit: Also, do you really think the British or any government would admit an unarmed preacher was a significant factor? Giving his views credibility is a disaster for elites.

What larger rebellion, it seems more to me that the facts support that he was a hindrance on the full potential of Indian Nationalism.
He also had expressed a willingness to be supportive of those with the right aim even with a different means.
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/how-gandhi-patel-and-nehru-colluded-with-the-british-to-suppress-the-naval-mutiny-of-1946/story/1/5567.html

While supporting the Khilafat agitation, Gandhi had also stated (on 1-6-1921) that he felt morally bound to help, using non-violent means, those who further a just cause even if they do not shun violence p. 151, [2]: "I would be untrue to my faith, if I refuse to assist in a just cause any men or measures that did not entirely coincide with the principle of non-violence. I would be promoting violence, if finding the Mussalmans to be in the right, I did not assist them by means strictly non-violent against those who had treacherously plotted the destruction of the dignity of Islam. Even when both parties believe in violence, there is often such a thing as justice on one side or the other. A robbed man has justice on his side, even though he may be preparing to regain the lost property by force.’’ Presuming again that he considered the cause of the independence of India as a just one he ought to have no qualms assisting in measures such as naval mutiny "that did not entirely coincide with the principle of non-violence’’, just as he was willing to assist the Mussalmans, by means strictly non-violent against those who had treacherously plotted the destruction of the dignity of Islam. He could easily have provided a political cover for the mutineers, which would be strictly non-violent, like Sinn Fein did for IRA. Going by the repressive measures the British subsequently used against the mutineers, and also that the British just fought and won a bloody world war, both sides in this case believed in violence. Yet, going by the argument Gandhi invoked in support of Muslims (agitating for Khilafat), there was clearly such a thing as justice on the side of the revolutionaries as they (like the rest of their compatriots) have been robbed of their freedom, which they were preparing to regain by force. Thus, by his argument, Gandhi could legitimately consider it as a triumph of non-violence if he could win them over to Satyagraha, but he was duty-bound to assist them even if he failed in doing so, again applying his own argument.

A significant factor? Non-violent types like Gandhi are the ones who are easily whitewashed and held up in the west as an ideal more so than others, you don't hear as readily of Subhas Chandra Bose in the west like you do Gandhi inspite that it seems apparent Gandhi wasn't the basis of change but as restraint upon it. The moderate to undermine the more radical ends. Hence my earlier quote of Gandhi being viewed as useful for the British when they did want to come to the table on somethings and it was reflected in the continuity of much British influence.

http://rickroderick.org/205-nietzsche-the-eternal-recurrence-1991/

I noted as the years went on how Martin Luther King got whiter and whiter. After his death, I mean. The pictures of him – and this is actually noticeable – became whiter and whiter. I saw him speak once when I was young and he was an African American – you know, very dark; black, you know. And as the photographs of him over the years – you know, the ones used by McDonalds – there is just a hit of skin tone…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence#Criticism

Gelderloos claims that traditional histories whitewash the impact of nonviolence, ignoring the involvement of militants in such movements as the Indian independence movement and the Civil Rights Movement and falsely showing Gandhi and King as being their respective movement's most successful activists.[162]:7–12

Although it speaks to the radicalness of some of their ideas that they get whitewashed.

During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred, and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their deaths, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names, to a certain extent, for the ‘consolation’ of the oppressed classes, and with the object of duping the latter, while, at the same time, robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge, and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labour movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is, or seems, acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now ‘Marxists’ (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently, German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the ‘national-German’ Marx, who, they claim, educated the labour unions, which are so splendidly organised for the purpose of waging a predatory war![5]

[One Degree]

I am not talking about armed rebellion though that mutiny and strikes were not violent in nature neither were Ambedkar's revolutionary proposals which Gandhi sabotaged at every step of the way. Just search Gandhi-Ambedkar and you will find tons of material on the subject. btw Ambedkar was not a communist, he was a liberal and his revolutionary programs were for the lower castes of the Indian society (he himself was one) which Gandhi sabotaged, frustrated he converted to Buddhism in 1956 with his followers, current Buddhists in India are basically this lot who converted in 1956.

Let me leave you with an excerpt between of a conversation between Gandhi and Ambedkar :

Gandhi: I understand that you have got some grievances against the Congress and me. I may tell you that I have been thinking over the problem of Untouchables ever since my school days – when you were not even born.

Ambedkar: It is true, Mahatmaji, that you started to think about the problem of Untouchables before I was born. All old and elderly persons always like to emphasize the point of age.



Gandhi: The Congress has spent not less than rupees twenty lakhs on the uplift of the Untouchables.

Ambedkar: The Congress is not sincere about its professions. Had it been, it would have surely made the removal of Untouchability a condition, like the wearing of khaddar, for becoming a member of the Congress. No person who did not employ untouchable women or men in his house, or rear up an untouchable student, or take food at home with an untouchable student at least once a week, should have been allowed to be a member of the Congress. Had there been such a condition, you could have avoided the ridiculous sight where the President of the District Congress Committee was seen opposing the temple entry of the Untouchables. You might say that Congress lacked strength and therefore it was unwise to lay down such a condition. Then my point is that Congress cares more for strength than for principles. This is my charge against you and the Congress. You say the British Government does not show a change of heart. I also say that the Hindus have not shown a change of heart in regard to our problem, and so long as they remain adamant, we would believe neither the Congress nor the Hindus. We believe in self-help and self-respect.

Gandhi: It is really surprising that men like you should offer opposition to me and to the Congress.

Ambedkar: We are not prepared to have faith in great leaders and Mahatmas. Let me be brutally frank about it. History tells that Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust, but raise no level.

The savage burn that Ambedkar is giving here in itself is great to read.

Ambedkar was revolutionary, SC Bose was revolutionary, Gandhi was not.

I took your advice and visited a couple of sites to refresh my memory.
Ambedkar did not convert until days before his death. So your argument here is a little misleading. He advocated just like Gandhi, but his actions were not really all that much different. Their disagreement was over ‘method’, not result. They both wanted the same thing. Gandhi stuck with his nonviolent approach to change by changing thinking. I don’t see the opposition to change that you seem to see. Neither were really successful in bringing about this change anyway, so both would be considered failed revolutionaries at best on this area.